This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The future of energy generation and storage

Jump to new
SirRumpole said:
Oh yes, and the LNP won't release their nuclear costings until AFTER the election.

You were saying?
Click to expand...
If this make you feel better, sure,.as far as i know, no nuclear is being built but the RE are being implemented now.
The way i see it
You could destroy any costing on nuclear figures, it is a pipe dream so too high or too low, how long is a piece of string which does not exist
But the cost of snowy 2, solar and wind farms, or even no actual figure and science proof that any RE farm and associated storage in Australia is actually less co2 producing than a gas turbine power plant, etc
That matters
Labour perfectly well knew that RE was to lead to an increase in power costs, Germany was there, i hope they did know otherwise they are smoking dope or iq deficient.
Politicians tell..and do not tell what their electorate wants to hear, both parties.. that's our politicians for us..but as the leftists dreams are further from reality , well the leftist politicians have to become better at lying
And most of the left is either politician only or pr/academic background: telling BS is truely their skill.
They do not do engineering, accounting or commerce
And they actually are much better at BS, by far
Compare Dutton, Howard, Costello speech to even our lowest Albanese , and if you go back Keating or Rudd ..
And same in the US
Clinton, Obama vs Reagan or Trump.
Back to the thread now.
 
The question is why?
What did they hope to achieve by hidng it?
They must know that eventually they have to release it, so why add to yhe pile on by trying to hide it as well?
Politicians, they just can't help themslves.
Mick
 
SirRumpole said:
Like modular nuclear reactors which are not in service anywhere in the world.

Now, back to the thread.
Click to expand...
One does have to remember that a SMR's are just existing reactors, in smaller sizes, that are fabricated in modular form.

The main stumbling block that I can find, is Government regulations and red tape and the technology that is being used isn't really the most suitable for the outcome being chased, which is sensible size with good efficiency.

Nuclear submarines and Aircraft carriers have small generation 2 modular reactors, the U.S hasn't to my knowledge had an issue with them, it is only that the military doesn't have to comply with the red tape or making money.

So it would follow that SMR's aren't some mystical beast, the main issue is that Gen 2 reactors in a small size aren't efficient.

Which no doubt technology will fix, as it is doing with renewables.


Nuclear-Powered Ships - World Nuclear Association

Over 160 ships are powered by more than 200 small nuclear reactors. Most are submarines, but they range from icebreakers to aircraft carriers. In future, constraints on fossil fuel use in transport may bring marine nuclear propulsion into more widespread use.
world-nuclear.org

As you say, back to the thread, just getting everyone on the correct page.
 
sptrawler said:
So it would follow that SMR's aren't some mystical beast, the main issue is that Gen 2 reactors in a small size aren't efficient.
Click to expand...
Nailed it.

Every state in Australia plus the NT have looked seriously at nuclear at some point historically and bottom line is none considered units over 600MW at the time, and for most it was considerably smaller than that.

First commercially operated nuclear generation in the UK was 4 x 50MW. Second one was 4 x 60MW.

Some of the military ones aren't that big either. 15MW for one I recall, 110MW for another.

Those are all electrical outputs not thermal.

So it's always been possible to build small nuclear reactors, that's how they started out. It's just that nuclear power is one of the more extreme examples of scale of economy - they're built as large as possible not for technical reasons but simply for economic reasons.

Similar with coal. Smallest units in the NEM are now the 280MW units at Gladstone whereas if we go back 40 years there were still 30MW machines in use in the 5 mainland states with coal-fired steam and there were 7.5MW machines still in service in the NT albeit with oil-fired steam not coal. Nobody would contemplate building anything that small today due to the economics.
 
Which is the very reason they become expensive and have cost and time overruns, same as most massive infrastructure undertakings.

As we say, this isn't rocket science and I'm sure China will develop high temperature reactors, then the West is really going to be playing catch up footy.
 
Smurf1976 said:
Smallest units in the NEM are now the 280MW units at Gladstone
Click to expand...
Should add that’s referring only to coal.

Smallest steam units still in use, other than those attached to CCGT’s or in industry, are the remaining 200 MW units at Torrens Island (SA) but those are gas-fired not coal.

Historically oil was also burned at Torrens Island but that capability has now been decommissioned and the generating plant itself is planned to shut next year. 1 x 200MW and all four 120MW units at Torrens Island being already closed.
 
Honest Government ads has done a great job on skewering the Liberals BS Nuclear Power policy.
Also manged to give Labour a kick in the googlies at the end.

There is no universe in which Nuclear Power makes sense in Australia in the next 25 years.

 
Geez Baz, if you are going to bag Nuclear, at least put some sort of scientific, environmental or economic data up.
Relying on Juice Media for your information is almost as bad as relying The Shovel.
Mick
 
Gosh who to believe, one of life's quandaries, one labor party ridiculing it and another stepping on all in its way to install it.


Labour set to take on NIMBYs blocking new nuclear power stations

Ministers will slash red tape and take on the 'blockers' to build nuclear reactors across Britain.
www.dailymail.co.uk

Labour minister set to slash red tape and take on the NIMBYs blocking the construction of new nuclear powers across Britain​


Ministers will slash red tape and take on the ‘blockers’ to build nuclear reactors across Britain.

More nuclear plants will be built across the country creating thousands of highly skilled jobs, the Prime Minister and Chancellor said.

The last nuclear power station to be built in the UK was in 1995. Construction on Hinkley Point C began in 2017 and it will open in around five years after multiple delays.

Last night, Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves told the Mail: ‘We were once a world pioneer in nuclear power but now we’re left floundering in the global race.

'Years of delay from a Conservative government too weak to take on the vested interests has stopped the country leading the way, but this government will not accept that.

‘The opportunity on offer is immense. New nuclear will boost UK energy security and has the potential to create thousands of jobs and kickstart economic growth – our number one mission.

'Sizewell C alone is expected to support 10,000 jobs and stimulate £4.4 billion worth of investment in the East of England.

‘But seizing the opportunity requires bold decisions. This Government is taking on the new nuclear blockers to put the UK back at the forefront of the global race.

'Our plans will shake up planning rules to make it easier and cheaper to build nuclear power stations across the country and put a stop to the endless dithering and debate. And they will help us renew the nuclear deterrent, protecting the UK for generations to come.

‘We’ve already begun axing red tape and tearing regulatory barriers that hold back economic growth, including overhauling the legal challenges to major infrastructure projects.

'This Government is going further and faster to kickstart economic growth, to put more money in working people’s pockets.’

Sir Keir said: ‘This country hasn’t built a nuclear power station in decades. We’ve been let down and left behind.
 
Not something you expect from Labor, maybe our lot will grow some Kahunas and tell nimbys and sacred siters to pull their heads in over wind and solar farms.
 
mullokintyre said:
Geez Baz, if you are going to bag Nuclear, at least put some sort of scientific, environmental or economic data up.
Relying on Juice Media for your information is almost as bad as relying The Shovel.
Mick
Click to expand...

Geez Mick if you can't recognize the scientific, environmental and economic data that was extensively quoted in that 3 minute clip we'll have to chip in for some glasses and hearing aids.

It was all there. CSIRO analysis, comparisons with a bunch of overseas nuclear developments, Also a country with zero nuclear industrial skills being touted by a political leader as miraculously capable of building these entities in world breaking record times.

There are no economically, practically rational reasons to stop renewable energy progress and start building out super expensive Nuclear power. It is all political BS of Trumpian dimensions.

Could there be a place for nuclear power in Australia in 2050-2060 ? Maybe. A small possibility. But from an economic POV the overwhelming cost savings of distributed wind/solar and battery/hydro firming will still kill Nuclear on economics alone.

Anyway the point of a 3 minute funny "political"ad is to get the principal realities across quickly ,clearly and with a punch.

None of this would be necessary if Peter Dutton wasn't such a cynical lying piece of merede.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gen Alpha
Replies
13
Views
746
moXJO
M
Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
496
Smurf1976
The Effect of Deepseek on Australian Stocks
Replies
7
Views
585
Smurf1976
SS1 - Sun Silver
2
Replies
27
Views
5K
Sean K
PGTX - Platinum Global Transition Fund
Replies
1
Views
626
Dona Ferentes
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...